What constitutes the "missing middle"?

[Docere]

Population over 100,000 % detached:

Burnaby 18.9%
Richmond 30.1%
Surrey 32.8%
Coquitlam 35.2%
Langley district 47.6%
Delta 55.5%

Population under 100,000, % detached

North Vancouver city 10.7%
New Westminster 13.8%
Langley city 21.3%
White Rock 24%
Port Moody 30.1%
Pitt Meadows 41.9%
North Vancouver district 49.3%
Maple Ridge 52.6%
West Vancouver 55.6%

[Docere]

2021 census (since 2026 census won't be counted and released until the fall of 2027).

Calgary CMA

Detached house 56.9%
Attached house 20%
Apartment >5 storeys 15.4%
Apartment 5+ storeys 7.2%

Edmonton CMA

Detached house 56.5%
Attached house 17.5%
Apartment > 5 stories 19.2%
Apartment 5+ stories 5.6%

Halifax CMA

Detached house 49.4%
Attached house 13.5%
Apartment > 5 storeys 20.5%
Apartment 5+ storeys 14.1%

Hamilton CMA

Detached 55.1%
Attached house 20.2%
Apartment > 5 storeys 8.3%
Apartment 5+ storeys 16.2%

Kitchener-Waterloo CMA

Detached house 53%
Attached house 20.4%
Apartment > 5 storeys 13.3%
Apartment 5+ storeys 13.1%

London CMA

Detached house 55%
Attached house 17.3%
Apartment > 5 storeys 10.1%
Apartment 5+ storeys 17.3%

Ottawa-Gatineau CMA

Detached house 45%
Attached house 26.2%
Apartment > 5 storeys 14.5%
Apartment 5+ storeys 13.9%

Quebec CMA

Detached house 40.4%
Attached house 14.4%
Apartment > 5 storeys 37.5%
Apartment 5+ storeys 6.9%

Victoria CMA

Detached house 38.1%
Attached house 25.4%
Apartment > 5 storeys 26.9%
Apartment 5+ storeys 8.3%

Windsor CMA

Detached house 69.6%
Attached house 12.9%
Apartment > 5 storeys 8.4%
Apartment 5+ storeys 8.5%

Winnipeg CMA

Detached house 60.3%
Attached house 9.2%
Apartment > 5 storeys 17.5%
Apartment 5+ storeys 12.5%

[Docere]

"High rise" or "missing middle"?

Brunswick Ave., The Annex:



Tyndall Ave, Parkdale:

[Nouvellecosse]

I still use the 12 story Emporis cutoff for highrise but there's also debate as to whether or not to include midrises so those could go either way. I'd be inclined to include them since they're very much in the middle of the scale in that setting since the GTA has no many actual highrises. But statscan has categories for below 5 stories and for 5 or more stories with the latter combining midrise, highrise and skyscrapers.

[GenWhy?]

In the BC Building Code if you're over 6-storeys it's considered a high-rise. That's when all the high-rise regulations kick in.

[Nouvellecosse]

^ Yes building codes only really deal with things like engineering, interior lighting, and fire safety so they're generally not affected by planning concerns. The reverse is certainly true in that aspects of planning can be affected by building codes such as certain building types not being feasible for certain sites due to needing to comply with codes, but it's pretty much a one-way relationship.

So using building code definitions for planning when the codes weren't created for that purpose doesn't really work. Planning cares about things like shadowing, the density of the site and wider area due to the resulting impact on transportation and other infrastructure, how and if difference land uses should be combined, community preferences for aesthetics, character and heritage, etc.

[ssiguy]

This notion of building missing middle housing to help solve Vancouver's housing crisis is so ridiculous it's to the point of being laughable.

Vancouver will NEVER, EVER have missing middle housing. Even if prices dropped in half over night, it is still too wildly expensive to ever have it. Missing middle housing is NOT a housing design, size, or location........it is price and that's all it is. There is no missing middle housing in Lethbridge or Drummondville because all forms of housing are relatively affordable. You can even say the same about larger centres like Edmonton, Winnipeg, and Quebec.

When you get to situation's like Vancouver, you are not missing middle housing but rather all housing that the average income person can comfortably afford ie a maximum of 30% of your after tax income spent on housing. If you were telling our realtor that is what you are looking for on your $60k income, they would think you are out on a day pass.

[niwell]

Ran into this image on urbantoronto of existing/approved/proposed developments on a stretch of Bayview Ave in Toronto near York Mills and the Bridle Path. This is one of the lowest density areas in the city and also wealthiest. Not going to become an urban paradise anytime soon (and these will all be very exclusive residences) but I'm fairly impressed with the scale of development going on - definitely a refreshing change from towers only.

[cranes]

https://condoculture.ca/blog/post/exploring-the-missing-middle-in-kw-real-estate
Exploring the “Missing Middle” in KW Real Estate
Posted: July 17th, 2026 By Condo Culture

If you’ve felt that the housing market in Kitchener-Waterloo has you only choosing between a detached house with a lawn to mow or a high-rise condo in the middle of the downtown, we’d like to introduce you to the “missing middle”.

The missing middle refers to homes that have more space than a standard apartment but not the upkeep or price tag of a single-family home. Think townhomes, stacked towns, mid-rise buildings, and multiplexes tucked into established neighbourhoods. These homes can offer the multi-level layouts, private outdoor spaces, and neighbourhood feel of a traditional house, paired with the low-maintenance convenience of condo living.

Here are three of our favourite examples of new and established properties that meet the criteria in the Waterloo Region.

114 Madison | 114 Madison Ave South, Kitchener

With occupancy starting September 1, 2026, this newly developed building has the best of both worlds: it’s on a quaint street near downtown Kitchener and Victoria Park but doesn’t require any maintenance. The 10 units at 114 Madison all come with a private garage and a rooftop patio, meaning that you get the benefit of a single-family home without breaking the bank by renting a detached residence.

The primary bedroom is connected to an ensuite full bath and walk-in closet; the modern kitchen is connected to an open-concept dining and living area. If you’re looking for the best and the newest property in Kitchener, this is the one for you.

Victoria Common | 310 Louisa Street, Kitchener

Once the hottest project in KW, the Victoria Common community has flown under the radar in recent years despite it being a desirable “missing middle” space to live. Located next to parks and schools, and not far from both Downtown and Uptown, these townhouses and soft-loft style condos have everything a modern buyer or renter is looking for.

Some units have two car garages with three bedrooms and 2.5 baths. This unassuming community doesn’t have the amenities that high-rises boast but it has a unique “quiet living” feel that’s peaceful and warranted.

Parkside Urban Towns | 40 Palace Street, Kitchener

If you’re like us, you want to be close to the action but not directly in the centre of it. Parkside Urban Towns, located near Ottawa Street S and Strasburg Road (across from McLennan Park), is in a prime location that has everything you need nearby without the bustle of the city centre. These two-bed, two-bath towns will have you walking down the stairs from your second-floor living room directly down the street to Fireside Deli, a local favourite.

The large, often over 1,000 sq. ft. units, feel like a house with the contemporary finishes and convenience of a condo.

Kitchener

Missing-middle housing proves you don’t have to choose between space, location, and a low-maintenance lifestyle. From brand-new rentals to established townhome communities, these properties offer some of the best of both condo and house living. If you’re looking for a home that falls comfortably in between, one of these KW communities might be the perfect fit.

[Docere]

There's more than twice as many "missing middle" dwellings in Kitchener-Waterloo than there are high rises.

[theman23]

Please format your posts people.

[Docere]

Even this video comparing Chicago and Toronto - which I think is pretty well-done and fair to both cities - repeats some of the myths about Toronto's alleged "missing middle." They say for example that Toronto quickly reverts to low-density SFHs outside of downtown and that Toronto "doesn't understand" that you can't just have huge towers and SFHs.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1swCsa1_U5s

[softee]

^ I watch that channel regularly & I commented on that video when it came out. I often sense a slight bias against Toronto since their content is often made up of videos praising the urbanism of home base Montreal.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by Docere

Even this video comparing Chicago and Toronto - which I think is pretty well-done and fair to both cities - repeats some of the myths about Toronto's alleged "missing middle." They say for example that Toronto quickly reverts to low-density SFHs outside of downtown and that Toronto "doesn't understand" that you can't just have huge towers and SFHs.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1swCsa1_U5s

But to say that "Toronto reverts quickly to low-density SFHs outside of downtown" isn't a myth. The terms "low density" and "quickly" are relative and often subjective terms rather than denoting a specific level of density and distance from downtown. So while it can be disagreed with, it can't really be objectively falsified which is what's required to call something a myth. Some might argue that many of the SFHs have been divided into apartments and therefore no longer single family. That is true and does increase the density compared to a reality in which that wasn't the case. But it doesn't change the fact that they were often originally designed as single family homes, and that even when sub-divided, they're lower density than more "middle scale" housing forms which is apparent when said forms are directly compared such as my comparison with Montreal plex areas earlier.

[MonkeyRonin]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

Some might argue that many of the SFHs have been divided into apartments and therefore no longer single family. That is true and does increase the density compared to a reality in which that wasn't the case. But it doesn't change the fact that they were often originally designed as single family homes, and that even when sub-divided, they're lower density than more "middle scale" housing forms which is apparent when said forms are directly compared such as my comparison with Montreal plex areas earlier.

This is a minor peeve of mine, but when talking about multi-unit houses people often refer to them as "conversions", when in reality the opposite is more likely to be true. In Toronto at least, houses commonly contained 2 or 3 (and sometimes more) units at the time of construction, up until the 1950s or so.

While older SFH > apartment conversions certainly do exist (usually in mansions in once-upscale neighbourhoods that went downmarket, eg. Parkdale), there are many more cases of multi-unit homes that over time have been converted into single family units. That was part of how the (pre-amalgamated) City of Toronto was able to lose 16% of its population in the 70s and 80s without any large-scale abandonment, for example.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

This notion of building missing middle housing to help solve Vancouver's housing crisis is so ridiculous it's to the point of being laughable.

Vancouver will NEVER, EVER have missing middle housing. Even if prices dropped in half over night, it is still too wildly expensive to ever have it. Missing middle housing is NOT a housing design, size, or location........it is price and that's all it is. There is no missing middle housing in Lethbridge or Drummondville because all forms of housing are relatively affordable. You can even say the same about larger centres like Edmonton, Winnipeg, and Quebec.

When you get to situation's like Vancouver, you are not missing middle housing but rather all housing that the average income person can comfortably afford ie a maximum of 30% of your after tax income spent on housing. If you were telling our realtor that is what you are looking for on your $60k income, they would think you are out on a day pass.

Yes poor people who continue to live in expensive cities with restrictive zoning won't be able to buy high quality missing middle housing. And perhaps nobody can with current politics.

Sure this is Vancouver "missing middle":

https://www.realtor.ca/real-estate/29966465/38-12585-104a-avenue-surrey

But if you let 5 story apartments be built including with zoning changes to allow them where SFH large lots are near transit AND you don't require elevators and multiple fire exits. You could have build $300k 1200 Sq Foot apartments here instead. Even without the last part you could have $400k apartments.

[niwell]

Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin

This is a minor peeve of mine, but when talking about multi-unit houses people often refer to them as "conversions", when in reality the opposite is more likely to be true. In Toronto at least, houses commonly contained 2 or 3 (and sometimes more) units at the time of construction, up until the 1950s or so.

While older SFH > apartment conversions certainly do exist (usually in mansions in once-upscale neighbourhoods that went downmarket, eg. Parkdale), there are many more cases of multi-unit homes that over time have been converted into single family units. That was part of how the (pre-amalgamated) City of Toronto was able to lose 16% of its population in the 70s and 80s without any large-scale abandonment, for example.

Likewise. There are several books that document the growth of Toronto in the early 1900s and outside of wealthy enclaves many, if not most, "houses" were built with multiple units. However, they were more likely to be owner-occupied than many cities with the owner living on the main floor and "lodgers" in other units. This was a deliberate choice to avoid the perceived social ills of tenement housing.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin

This is a minor peeve of mine, but when talking about multi-unit houses people often refer to them as "conversions", when in reality the opposite is more likely to be true. In Toronto at least, houses commonly contained 2 or 3 (and sometimes more) units at the time of construction, up until the 1950s or so.

While older SFH > apartment conversions certainly do exist (usually in mansions in once-upscale neighbourhoods that went downmarket, eg. Parkdale), there are many more cases of multi-unit homes that over time have been converted into single family units. That was part of how the (pre-amalgamated) City of Toronto was able to lose 16% of its population in the 70s and 80s without any large-scale abandonment, for example.

That's perfectly fine, but it isn't terribly relevant to the larger point which is the drop off in density.

[Docere]

In the 1951 census, 32% of dwellings in the (then) City of Toronto were detached, 30% were apartments or flats and the remaining 38% were attached.

Population density (19000 per square mile in the 35 square mile area central city, 17000 in the 50 square mile area of the city and surrounding urbanized municipalities) was certainly in line with other eastern North American cities at the time or even at the high end.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by Docere

Population density (19000 per square mile in the 35 square mile area central city, 17000 in the 50 square mile area of the city and surrounding urbanized municipalities) was certainly in line with other eastern North American cities at the time.

That's great except a) Eastern NA cities didn't have the same density as one another at the time. Perhaps Toronto was in line with the average, but NYC had far higher than others, and Montreal would have had notably higher density than Toronto since Toronto didn't have very many residential highrises then. Philadelphia and several other eastern cities would also have had higher lowrise density.

And b) eastern NA is one small pocket of the globe, and other than NYC isn't a region known for especially dense cities. Denser than more western NA cities, but that's not really an accomplishment. So it isn't clear why that comparison is terribly relevant. Most eastern NA cities were also house-dominated, so it having similar historic density as other house-dominated cities doesn't really refute the fact that house-dominated lowrise form isn't as dense as more mid-scale lowrise form.

And c) Toronto wasn't nearly as large or globally prominent as it is now, so having average-ish regional characteristics as an average-ish regional center isn't that relevant to the current situation. It's now often viewed as an above average global city that people expect to have above average, global city characteristics. Which is reflected in the type of cities it gets compared to. And in many respects that's fine as in many ways it can hold its own. But in other ways, its not-so-distant past as a more modest regional center becomes apparent. Every city has its strengths and weaknesses.